Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*
Hair-splitting? Mr. Bailey, if you were my doctor, you'd listen to my heart through a stethoscope and pronounce me dead between each beat. What was it, two years after Enterprise was canceled before Abrams got the go-ahead for his film? The franchise was no more dead then than it was between the movies back in the eighties. "Star Trek was dead before Abrams." Really, you give the man too much credit. He just had enough of a name to renew corporate interest in the franchise a little earlier than it would have anyway. Look at the Batman and Superman franchises ... they went decades between new movies, and you're penning the obituary for Trek because nothing was done in a two year hiatus?
Unlike you, I do care whether Star Trek continues. Whenever the familiar fanfare plays over the Paramount logo in a movie I haven't seen before, my heart skips a beat and there's a little extra moisture in my eyes. I like the characters and I like the setting. I love the picture of an optimistic future Star Trek represents. And I love seeing the Enterprise kick ass and come out on top ... even if it doesn't actually fire a shot. I'd just prefer it doesn't keep getting watered-down with flakier and flakier notions of what looks good on screen. I'd also like to see some serious, hard SF in a Star Trek movie now and then, instead of the slide into techno-babble fantasy that became Voyager's hallmark (although that was certainly never unique to Voyager). This is why I've been careful to couch most of my criticisms of the upcoming movie in terms of the art direction. What I see there simply isn't believable, nor is it especially iconographic of something that could be believable if they had a bigger budget and a glimpse of what the 23rd Century will really look like. But that's absolutely no reflection of the writing, acting, soundtrack, or cinematography, and I dearly hope the movie shines brighter in those categories than it does in the art direction. If it doesn't, then there's a real chance I'll never enjoy that swell in my chest and sigh of satisfaction I've come to love at a fresh premier.
Starship Polaris said:On TV and in the movies, "Star Trek" was dead before Abrams.
Two years ago, Paramount thought it worth the risk to invest in a new Star Trek movie. Therefore Star Trek wasn't dead.
On TV and in the movies, "Star Trek" was dead before Abrams.
You didn't say anything different, you just rephrased it. Hair-splitting.
Hair-splitting? Mr. Bailey, if you were my doctor, you'd listen to my heart through a stethoscope and pronounce me dead between each beat. What was it, two years after Enterprise was canceled before Abrams got the go-ahead for his film? The franchise was no more dead then than it was between the movies back in the eighties. "Star Trek was dead before Abrams." Really, you give the man too much credit. He just had enough of a name to renew corporate interest in the franchise a little earlier than it would have anyway. Look at the Batman and Superman franchises ... they went decades between new movies, and you're penning the obituary for Trek because nothing was done in a two year hiatus?
Unlike you, I do care whether Star Trek continues. Whenever the familiar fanfare plays over the Paramount logo in a movie I haven't seen before, my heart skips a beat and there's a little extra moisture in my eyes. I like the characters and I like the setting. I love the picture of an optimistic future Star Trek represents. And I love seeing the Enterprise kick ass and come out on top ... even if it doesn't actually fire a shot. I'd just prefer it doesn't keep getting watered-down with flakier and flakier notions of what looks good on screen. I'd also like to see some serious, hard SF in a Star Trek movie now and then, instead of the slide into techno-babble fantasy that became Voyager's hallmark (although that was certainly never unique to Voyager). This is why I've been careful to couch most of my criticisms of the upcoming movie in terms of the art direction. What I see there simply isn't believable, nor is it especially iconographic of something that could be believable if they had a bigger budget and a glimpse of what the 23rd Century will really look like. But that's absolutely no reflection of the writing, acting, soundtrack, or cinematography, and I dearly hope the movie shines brighter in those categories than it does in the art direction. If it doesn't, then there's a real chance I'll never enjoy that swell in my chest and sigh of satisfaction I've come to love at a fresh premier.